Aqva, indeed I have praised both Cevilia and Pericles for being
IMHO some of the best posters on OLO. OTOH, history of our posts would
show that where we agreed to disagree, we each stood our ground.

One of the benefits of being free from chips on our shoulders,
is that we can say what we think, based on the issues, not some
devious motive. Your posts display how your mind must work :)

Nobody in Australia can be forced to be a parent, if they do not
wish to, all have choices. Yet they need to be held responsible for
their actions. Clearly compulsory abortion would not be acceptable
in our society. Would you agree or not?\

Your second point implies that its ok for men to use every deviant
tactic to bed down a woman for the night, then walk away scott free,
free of any responsibility, as it was all "casual". Yup, its good
old Darwinian evolution theory that men want to spread their genes
as far and wide as they can. Given that children might arise,
both parents should accept their responsibility and pay for a share
of the childs expenses. Society in general agrees with me on this
one Aqva, so you are out on a lonely limb here.

So my arguments on both these points are not suspect at all, but
standard thinking within society, as the law shows. OTOH your
arguments are suspect, for we realise that to pass the time you
simply enjoy arguing. Perhaps you need a hobby or something :)

Celivia,

It continues to be a pleasure to debate you.

You ask, “What is more important to you- How people sexually behave, or how many ‘babies’ are being ‘killed’?”

Good question, but you know my answer.

Both are important. However, the second question only comes into play because “the rules” for family and the male-female relationship, that make for happiness between a man and a woman are almost universally being flouted these days, ie sex outside the loving, child welcoming, vow encompassed institution of marriage (a relationship which I will never deny involves plenty of hard work, compromises, give and take, forgiveness, fresh starts, etc). It is the flouting of these God given humane rules, that is the reason for your second question. Without this destructive flouting your second question falls into inconsequence.

BTW, I think you are prepared to rush into offering an abortion far too quickly when there are so many childless couples who would gladly ditch IVF (whether or not it would work for them) in order to adopt a child that a mother couldn’t keep (that a woman with an unlooked for pregnancy chose not to abort).

I agree with your cruel but fair assessment of aqvarivs.

Yvonne,

You ask, which “Who of you anti abortion position holders is going to enforce an unwilling pregnant woman to continue with her pregnancy?”.

This in fact is a red herring, certainly with the use of the word, “enforce”.

From my earlier posts you will find that I have conceded that I am in no position, let alone desirous of “enforcing” a pregnant woman to continue with her pregnancy, though I freely admit to want her to undergo independent counselling before an abortion in which all options are on the table including continuing with the pregnancy and having the child or adopting out and abortion (but note an abortion clinic is a totally inappropriate place/body for providing such counselling, as is medicare fee doctor’s surgery), and to understand precisely who it is, who is be aborted - ie view ultrasound images as occurs with a “wanted” child.

Aqvarivs,
Yabby explained very much what I was going to say to you in reply, e.g.: “Its his child that attaches itself to him financially with good reason, not the woman. Give me a good reason why both parents should not have financial responsibility for that child” Excellent point, so yes, I praise Yabby because his posts on life issues are empathic and logical. I might agree with your opinion on other topics perhaps- just not on this issue.

Even David, whose POV on abortion I oppose, I still respect for his debating skills and patience.
I can even imagine that in HIS community, his view is valued and his ‘method’ (1) would work.
While I can see that, the only reason why I oppose him is that he shouldn’t expect ALL people in Australia to agree with his beliefs or those of his community, and for outsiders a different method (2) would work better to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There is no reason why both methods shouldn’t be applied by different groups simultaneously.

I have no problems with people having faith in anything they choose, as long as they don’t interfere with other people’s freedom.
Abortion happens to be such topic where I see religion interfering with other people’s freedom, as is euthanasia and homosexuality.

Anyway, contraception is the responsibility of BOTH partners.
It’s only for biological reasons that women have all control AFTER fertilisation. THEY OWN THE WOMB.
I've been reasonable in allowing for special, individual situations.

You said, “I hope you are not in any position to influence young women of such a 'victim mentality'”
What I taught my children is to respect themselves and others, and to take responsibility for their own actions. If they make mistakes, to try to correct them. Both my son and daughter get the same advice. Teaching a child how they can possibly get others to mop up their mess without having to take responsibility will turn them into litigators who blame others for their dramas.

Continued

Both my children were the recipients of the Citizenship Award at the farewell at their primary school, which proves to me that they are responsible people.
I won’t accept my kids to come home with “Boo-hoo I’m a victim” sob story. They come to me when they need advice and give me facts: “I did blah-blah, it was probably the wrong choice because it caused blah-blah to happen, and I didn’t realise…” or similar. Then we think of ways to fix it or do something positive.

There is one more thing I don’t understand about your opinion, aqva:
While you’ve blamed feminists for persuading/manipulating women to have abortions, you're perfectly happy for men to manipulate/persuade their pregnant partners into having abortions by threatening to withhold child support if they don’t have an abortion.
Have you thought about the possibility that if a woman cares enough about her foetus to want to continue the pregnancy despite becoming a single mum, she may also care about its future?
As a mother, I can understand that it’s a very unsafe feeling to not to know whether she’ll be able to adequately provide the basics for a child.
And have you considered the fact that not all women feel right about abortions or adoption?

Let us, for a moment, imagine that men DO have the right to do a runner if he finds his partner is going to have his child against his wishes.
Then what? I’ll be generous and give you a chance to paint me a picture of this ideal world where women have ALL the responsibilities and men have none whatsoever.

David,
You do have a good point if you’re indeed saying that counseling for pregnant women has to be an unbiased service providing information about ALL the options a pregnant woman has.
I don’t agree with the pictures, but if I had to settle with this idea I’d also negotiate that she’d be informed about the gory details of children living with mothers In comparable socio-economic circumstances as she would be In after having the baby. Fair is fair.

Celivia, I'm talking about freedom of choice and responsibility for those choices. It's a shame you don't think exercising the freedom not to have a child as a single woman is equally empowering as choosing to have a child with out support. Kind of a limited freedom I'd say. Single women who have children with out any supporting partner directly influence three(3)lives. The woman who is now singularly tied to that child and who is effectively stunted emotionally and intellectually and in employment. Real success is the exception. The young man who by her decision also becomes effectively stunted emotionally and intellectually and in employment. And the child's future which invariably is emotionally and intellectually stunted as well as it's employment prospects. Again real success is the exception. The out come of this one woman's decision is a negative impact on three(3)lives. And while who-who hurray, she got to exercise her supposed 'right' or went home empowered is your highest ideal. The reality is three(3)more people just entered the world of domestic violence, child neglect, poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness, etc.,etc..
The happy ending is a fairy tale. While not being PRO-abortion. I do think it has it's purpose as a tool in regulating the disadvantages of contraception or indiscretion. Especially drugs like mifepristone. Single women need to be taught to be judicious when it comes to exercising their assumed 'rights' and think on the long term.
We have few married women with children visit our refuge. Only one all last month. Sometimes two or three at once. More single women in bad relationships, and the majority, young single mothers with child or children with no fathers. Some have more than one child with more than one father. This is the reality. Something like 60 odd womens refuges with in the greater Sydney area chocked full of single mothers. I'm afraid I can not share your ecstatic joy in feminist empowerment. I'll wait until it is constrained by judicious forethought. And the numbers of single women with children in crisis centres experience a sharp down turn.

Though silent for some time, I have been following the debate. Celivia has said it all, as I see it, and I have nothing useful to add to her well-presented arguments. But it puzzles me that so many red herrings have been thrown in, and that so many posters do not go to the central point. I also thank David Palmer for his courteous and consistent attention to the reactions to his essay that began this particular debate.I am glad that he accepts that his position can only apply with any force to those who follow his religious beliefs. The rest of us have to construct an ethical position for ourselves.This is not easy to do, and we are not likely to arrive at a common position on this or any other 'moral' question. But fortunately, we live in a society where differences on these issues are proper, and debate about them essential.